The invented fact here is that Atta was on the CIA's watch list. Nor was he on any other government watch list prior to September 11th. Its repetition lays down a fog about the responsibility for the attack. For example, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, when lecturing at the JFK Library on Oct 4th, 2001, described the "law enforcement failure" of September 11th as follows:

"To understand how bad it was, you need look no further than the specific movements of Mohammed Atta, who was probably the mastermind of these attacks, all of which has now been in the newspapers. The CIA put him on the watch list of most wanted terrorists in the world sometime in the early summer or late spring of this year... It is clear, therefore, that the FBI. and the FAA. don't talk to each other, that the FBI. never gave the watch list names to leading American airlines"

Soooo, how is it that Holbrooke opposes the GWB moves (which were passed by both houses of Congress by huge majorities)? Because he's a lying liar, unlike the victims of Al Franken's latest POS.

Epstein is described as a liberal by William Safire, who cites his website. Epstein's writing is more commonly found on Slate (hardly a conservative publication), the NY Times, and other bastions of the partisans. The following piece appeared in the local paper here sometime after it was first published.

Remember how anti-liberation politicians and journalists pooh-poohed Colin Powell's February 2003 speech to the U.N. about the presence in Iraq of a Qaeda associate, identified in this space as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? Powell's assertion had this "sensitive reporting" basis: "As of Oct. 2002 al Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a U.S. occupation of the city." ...Feith's intelligence summary available to senators: "The Czech counterintelligence service reported that the Sept. 11 hijacker [Mohamed] Atta met with the former Iraqi intelligence chief in Prague, al Ani, on several occasions. During one of those meetings, al Ani ordered the IIS [Iraq Intelligence Service] finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office." ...Though the C.I.A. can confirm two Atta trips to Prague, in 1994 and 2000, it cannot confirm the two other visits the Czechs reported, including one on April 9, 2001, with Saddam's top European agent, al-Ani, then vice consul in Prague. C.I.A. chief George Tenet testified that the meeting reported by the Czech service was "possible," but the F.B.I. floated hints that car rental records showed Atta to be traveling between Virginia and Florida that week. Enter the writer Edward Jay Epstein in the liberal online journal Slate: "All these reports attributed to the FBI were, as it turns out, erroneous. There were no car rental records in Virginia, Florida, or anywhere else in April 2001 for Mohamed Atta, since he had not yet obtained his Florida license." You cannot rent a car without a driver's license.

21
posted on 06/18/2004 9:55:28 AM PDT
by SunkenCiv
(Unlike some people, I have a profile. Okay, maybe it's a little large...)

Both indictments offer new information about Mr. bin Laden's operations, including one deal he is said to have struck with Iraq to cooperate in the development of weapons in return for Mr. bin Laden's agreeing not to work against that country.

That detail seems to be in an 8 page indictment rather than the 157 page indictment. (as near as I can tell!)

Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.

The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq

44
posted on 06/18/2004 10:19:15 AM PDT
by Mo1
(That's right Old Media .... PRESIDENT BUSH IS A LEADER!)

You don't get it. We apoligized for our mistaken, biased coverage in the run-up to the war in Iraq because it fits our agenda to defeat Mr. Bush at all costs. This includes any statement made by anyone claiming Mr. Hussein was a bad man or acted in concert with bad men, like Osama Bin Laden. It's not like we're going to tell you that there's a tape graphically depicting prison torture directed Mr. Hussein. Only American troops can systematically torture Iraqi prisoners. Remember Abu Ghraib?

We apologized. Why hasn't Mr. Bush apologized? Mr. Bush should apologize to the American people for letting them think Mr. Hussein was an evil dictator. Things are not so black and white. Why hasn't Mr. Bush apologized? Mr. Bush is not nuanced and his world view is simplistic. Why hasn't Mr. Bush apologized? We apologized. Why hasn't Mr. Bush apologized?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.